ADS-B Mandate – ATCs Responsible for Deaths?
Folks,
From The Australian today, even Mr. McCormick is having his say.
---------------------------------------
The former head of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority says his five-year campaign for safer skies came up against repeated resistance from Airservices Australia, which dragged its heels against *reforming airspace management along US lines.
John McCormick, who stepped down from CASA last year, said that he met opposition each time he moved to have Airservices, the government-owned body that runs the nation’s air traffic control and navigation system, extend controlled airspace.
In his first interview since *leaving the aviation watchdog, Mr McCormick said Airservices seemed reluctant to implement measures that involved its air *traffic controllers directing aircraft over a wider range of airspace where reliable radar was available. “Their objections were not based on safety; to my belief, they were internal Airservices *issues,” Mr McCormick said.
In one case, Mr McCormick said, he had to issue a directive to have Airservices’ air traffic controllers take charge of aircraft around Avalon airport in Victoria, a move he believes may have *prevented a potential serious air accident.
Mr McCormick said he supported calls from businessman and aviator Dick Smith and others for Airservices to have its fire and rescue crews at regional airports without control towers to provide pilots with basic local air traffic and weather information via radio, as do their counterparts in the US.
Airservices chairman Angus Houston has vigorously opposed the suggestion.
Mr McCormick said it made sense because Airservices’ prime responsibility was air safety and the firefighters were its employees. “You have to say, ‘What are they there for … what do we want them to do’,” Mr McCormick said.
Mr McCormick, who started his career as a RAAF fighter pilot before becoming a Qantas pilot and later a senior executive with Cathay Pacific, put his weight behind restarting the effort begun in the early 2000s to move to the US and Canadian national airspace system.
In those countries, whether radar is available or not, commercial aircraft are always under direction by air traffic controllers almost right to the runway. “They say they have implemented it, but of course they haven’t,” Mr McCormick said of the unfulfilled plans to introduce the North American system.
Australia still has a mishmash of regimes in which some airports are in designated controlled airspace, but most others, including some with significant airline traffic, are not, requiring pilots in cloud to talk to each other to work out their relative positions and avoid collisions.
The Airservices media unit yesterday refused to provide information or comment.
Mr McCormick’s decision to speak out follows a sustained campaign by The Australian raising issues of air safety and the administration of government aviation organisations.
While the new CASA chairman, Jeff Boyd, recently unveiled to this newspaper a reform agenda to embrace the US model, Mr Smith suspects he will encounter push-back from Airservices because of what he claims is a misguided assumption on its part that it would mean hiring more air traffic controllers.
Mr McCormick said he did succeed in some reform, such as improving airspace arrangements at the main secondary airports used for general aviation in each mainland capital.
At Avalon, not far from Melbourne’s Tullamarine airport, the situation was absurd, Mr McCormick said, because the radar coverage of the area was so good “you could see aircraft on the ground” but it was not being used for air traffic control down to the runway.
“I said that this was unacceptable. For various reasons, there was a bit of objection,” Mr McCormick said, referring to Airservices.
He said Airservices did not move fast to implement the CASA directive to bring Avalon under controlled airspace. “It took them a year. They hybrided their way towards it,” Mr McCormick said.
It was after controlled airspace was introduced at Avalon that air traffic controllers helped avoid what potentially could have been a major air accident, Mr McCormick said, after a Tiger Airways airline pilot decided on a go-around of the runway at night.
“In the subsequent missed approach procedure the radar controller noticed they were descending when they shouldn’t be,” Mr McCormick said. “The controller told them, then they arrested their descent. If that airspace wouldn’t have been changed, he or she would not have had the requirement to monitor that aircraft.”
It was a further example, Mr McCormick said, of how controlled airspace should be extended at least wherever reliable radar coverage was available.
In 2004, air traffic controllers did not intervene when a radar alarm warned them an aircraft was off-course in uncontrolled airspace, and it crashed into terrain near Benalla in Victoria with the loss of six lives.
From The Australian today, even Mr. McCormick is having his say.
---------------------------------------
The former head of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority says his five-year campaign for safer skies came up against repeated resistance from Airservices Australia, which dragged its heels against *reforming airspace management along US lines.
John McCormick, who stepped down from CASA last year, said that he met opposition each time he moved to have Airservices, the government-owned body that runs the nation’s air traffic control and navigation system, extend controlled airspace.
In his first interview since *leaving the aviation watchdog, Mr McCormick said Airservices seemed reluctant to implement measures that involved its air *traffic controllers directing aircraft over a wider range of airspace where reliable radar was available. “Their objections were not based on safety; to my belief, they were internal Airservices *issues,” Mr McCormick said.
In one case, Mr McCormick said, he had to issue a directive to have Airservices’ air traffic controllers take charge of aircraft around Avalon airport in Victoria, a move he believes may have *prevented a potential serious air accident.
Mr McCormick said he supported calls from businessman and aviator Dick Smith and others for Airservices to have its fire and rescue crews at regional airports without control towers to provide pilots with basic local air traffic and weather information via radio, as do their counterparts in the US.
Airservices chairman Angus Houston has vigorously opposed the suggestion.
Mr McCormick said it made sense because Airservices’ prime responsibility was air safety and the firefighters were its employees. “You have to say, ‘What are they there for … what do we want them to do’,” Mr McCormick said.
Mr McCormick, who started his career as a RAAF fighter pilot before becoming a Qantas pilot and later a senior executive with Cathay Pacific, put his weight behind restarting the effort begun in the early 2000s to move to the US and Canadian national airspace system.
In those countries, whether radar is available or not, commercial aircraft are always under direction by air traffic controllers almost right to the runway. “They say they have implemented it, but of course they haven’t,” Mr McCormick said of the unfulfilled plans to introduce the North American system.
Australia still has a mishmash of regimes in which some airports are in designated controlled airspace, but most others, including some with significant airline traffic, are not, requiring pilots in cloud to talk to each other to work out their relative positions and avoid collisions.
The Airservices media unit yesterday refused to provide information or comment.
Mr McCormick’s decision to speak out follows a sustained campaign by The Australian raising issues of air safety and the administration of government aviation organisations.
While the new CASA chairman, Jeff Boyd, recently unveiled to this newspaper a reform agenda to embrace the US model, Mr Smith suspects he will encounter push-back from Airservices because of what he claims is a misguided assumption on its part that it would mean hiring more air traffic controllers.
Mr McCormick said he did succeed in some reform, such as improving airspace arrangements at the main secondary airports used for general aviation in each mainland capital.
At Avalon, not far from Melbourne’s Tullamarine airport, the situation was absurd, Mr McCormick said, because the radar coverage of the area was so good “you could see aircraft on the ground” but it was not being used for air traffic control down to the runway.
“I said that this was unacceptable. For various reasons, there was a bit of objection,” Mr McCormick said, referring to Airservices.
He said Airservices did not move fast to implement the CASA directive to bring Avalon under controlled airspace. “It took them a year. They hybrided their way towards it,” Mr McCormick said.
It was after controlled airspace was introduced at Avalon that air traffic controllers helped avoid what potentially could have been a major air accident, Mr McCormick said, after a Tiger Airways airline pilot decided on a go-around of the runway at night.
“In the subsequent missed approach procedure the radar controller noticed they were descending when they shouldn’t be,” Mr McCormick said. “The controller told them, then they arrested their descent. If that airspace wouldn’t have been changed, he or she would not have had the requirement to monitor that aircraft.”
It was a further example, Mr McCormick said, of how controlled airspace should be extended at least wherever reliable radar coverage was available.
In 2004, air traffic controllers did not intervene when a radar alarm warned them an aircraft was off-course in uncontrolled airspace, and it crashed into terrain near Benalla in Victoria with the loss of six lives.
Australia still has a mishmash of regimes in which some airports are in designated controlled airspace, but most others, including some with significant airline traffic, are not, requiring pilots in cloud to talk to each other to work out their relative positions and avoid collisions.
Mr Smith suspects he will encounter push-back from Airservices because of what he claims is a misguided assumption on its part that it would mean hiring more air traffic controllers.
With the extension of E airspace, the right of RAOz Pilot Certificate Holders to operate in E must be granted, subject to meeting the current transponder requirement.
I continue to chuckle at this fanciful concept that just because it is VMC, you can operate two parallel but completely independent airspace types, all aircraft kept apart by See and be Seen. Dick, you're right you would never have got ANY Class E unless transponders were mandated. It is sheer lunacy to expect jets to fly around looking out for bugsmashers. Tobago v 737 example. I wonder why J Mac didn't mention that one? ATC are quite at liberty to provide hazard alerts; if going into a CTAF, they should and they have.
As for Tiger, it's been done to death already. Should we design the complete airspace system around those that don't know the basic rules? EGPWS will bleat if you get too low off-airport.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rr007,
Would you expand on that, please, I can't see any reference in Issue 7 of the RAOz Operations Manual that the controlled airspace endorsements for an RAOz Pilot Certificate holder have made it into the manual.
Tootle pip!!
Would you expand on that, please, I can't see any reference in Issue 7 of the RAOz Operations Manual that the controlled airspace endorsements for an RAOz Pilot Certificate holder have made it into the manual.
Tootle pip!!
the aeroplane must only be flown in:
(i) Class G airspace; or
(ii) Class E airspace in V.M.C.; or
(iii) in accordance with paragraph 7.3 — in Class A, B, C or D airspace;
Class E isn't considered controlled airspace to VFR aircraft, therefore no controlled airspace endorsement is required.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting, Mr. McCormick's claims, and distancing himself.
I wonder if he was aware of his own Office of Airspace Regulation, and what their regulatory responsibilities are?
In short, it is CASA OAR's role to assess the environment at locations and make a determination as to whether the existing airspace classification and services are adequate or not.
CASA OAR have conducted aeronautical studies since 2007 and have only on rare occasions found that the existing airspace classifications or services were inadequate and required upgrading e.g. Broome Karratha Avalon.
Given that for those locations Towers had to be built from scratch or refurbished, links installed and staff recruited, relocated and trained, airspace designed and published via a chart release, one would think 12 months to implement not unreasonable. And if OAR had determined that more urgent implementation was required, they could have - but didn't.
I wonder if he was aware of his own Office of Airspace Regulation, and what their regulatory responsibilities are?
Role of the OAR
The role of the OAR is to regulate Australian airspace in accordance with the Airspace Act 2007 and the Airspace Regulations 2007, and to meet the Australian Government commitment expressed in the Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2012 to:
The administration of Australian airspace as a national resource shall:
To meet the requirements and guidance, the OAR undertakes the following activities:
The role of the OAR is to regulate Australian airspace in accordance with the Airspace Act 2007 and the Airspace Regulations 2007, and to meet the Australian Government commitment expressed in the Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2012 to:
- ensure that Australian airspace is administered and used safely, taking into account:
- protection of the environment,
- efficient use of that airspace,
- equitable access to that airspace for all users of that airspace,
national security; and - continue the reform of Australia's airspace and move towards closer alignment with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) system and adoption of proven international best practice.
The administration of Australian airspace as a national resource shall:
- consider safety of Passenger Transport Services as the first priority;
- be in the best interests of Australia;
- consider the current and future needs of the Australian aviation industry;
- adopt proven international best practice airspace systems adapted to benefit Australia's aviation environment; and
- take advantage of advances in technology wherever practicable.
To meet the requirements and guidance, the OAR undertakes the following activities:
- assessing and managing Airspace Change Proposals (ACPs),
- consulting with industry on airspace matters,
- reviews of the airspace classification and designation to ensure that the airspace is fit for purpose, and
- participating in future strategic airspace planning.
CASA OAR have conducted aeronautical studies since 2007 and have only on rare occasions found that the existing airspace classifications or services were inadequate and required upgrading e.g. Broome Karratha Avalon.
Given that for those locations Towers had to be built from scratch or refurbished, links installed and staff recruited, relocated and trained, airspace designed and published via a chart release, one would think 12 months to implement not unreasonable. And if OAR had determined that more urgent implementation was required, they could have - but didn't.
I love the way that Dick bangs on about Australia being antiquated, well you can't get much more dirt track antiquated than mixing IFR RPT with unalerted VRF and relying on see & avoid. That is straight out of the 50s and the US is stuck there because they daren't do anything different.
He said Airservices did not move fast to implement the CASA directive to bring Avalon under controlled airspace. “It took them a year. They hybrided their way towards it,” Mr McCormick said.
staff recruited, relocated and trained, airspace designed and published via a chart release
So much for "hybrided". We (and presumably those at the coalface in CASA OAR) thought at the time the action was entirely appropriate.
I recall Airservices also put in a CA/GRS at BRM & KA as an interim measure before the Towers and airspace was ready, and have done the same thing at Hedland. In fact the latter has been operating at Hedland for a couple of years now I believe, because the traffic reduced to the point CASA OAR no longer required a Tower service.
However, never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
It's certainly costs everyone a lot more and will quite probably lead to the demise of GA.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please contact me, I've got a bridge for sale.
Typical public servant, on the CSS scheme or Defined Benefit? An airspace user, one of the blokes that pays your wages is expressing an opinion. He flies in it every day, runs a business & probably knows a little more about it than you. Show some effing respect.
(Not) It's certainly costs everyone a lot more and will quite probably lead to the demise of GA
Last edited by le Pingouin; 24th Jul 2015 at 13:08. Reason: added comment
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cool, now I know the meaning.
My remarks point out that it's easy when you're making a comfortable living from your customers and you're a monopoly provider to become arrogant and out of touch with them. It also points out that most business owners in GA will finish with no super or retirement savings. It's easy sitting in an ivory tower (pun intended) to think you know it all about your customers business.
Basically, pull your head out of your arse, spend a week with these guys and look at what they have to cope with day to day. I don't know one centre or twr\tma ATC that has done this in the last 10 years. (Apart from the pilot ones). Arrogant & out of touch.
(you may as well add condescending to that list)
My remarks point out that it's easy when you're making a comfortable living from your customers and you're a monopoly provider to become arrogant and out of touch with them. It also points out that most business owners in GA will finish with no super or retirement savings. It's easy sitting in an ivory tower (pun intended) to think you know it all about your customers business.
Basically, pull your head out of your arse, spend a week with these guys and look at what they have to cope with day to day. I don't know one centre or twr\tma ATC that has done this in the last 10 years. (Apart from the pilot ones). Arrogant & out of touch.
(you may as well add condescending to that list)
Ok well I am an ATC that is not on CSS or DB. I also am a pilot. So explain how the airspace set up is leading to the demise of GA to me. I can see how the ADSB mandate impacts negatively cost wise but I can't see how the airspace is doing that?
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok well I am an ATC that is not on CSS or DB. I also am a pilot. So explain how the airspace set up is leading to the demise of GA to me. I can see how the ADSB mandate impacts negatively cost wise but I can't see how the airspace is doing that?
What does installing ADSB have to do with the airspace set up? That is a completely separate mandate which I agree has cost issues.
Part 61 appears to be a balls up. Still not an airspace set up issue.
I agree GA has it tough, but I can't see airspace making any difference to that, unless Class E to 700' is brought in and you need to fit a transponder.
Part 61 appears to be a balls up. Still not an airspace set up issue.
I agree GA has it tough, but I can't see airspace making any difference to that, unless Class E to 700' is brought in and you need to fit a transponder.